C.F.R. » Title 42 » CHAPTER IV—CENTERS FOR MEDICARE & MEDICAID SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES › SUBCHAPTER C—MEDICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS › PART 435—ELIGIBILITY IN THE STATES, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS, AND AMERICAN SAMOA › Subpart J—Eligibility in the States and District of Columbia

42 C.F.R. § 435.903

Adherence of local agencies to State plan requirements

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

The agency must—

(a) Have methods to keep itself currently informed of the adherence of local agencies to the State plan provisions and the agency's procedures for determining eligibility; and

(b) Take corrective action to ensure their adherence.

[44 FR 17937, Mar. 23, 1979. Redesignated at 59 FR 48809, Sept. 23, 1994]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases, 1982–2012 · leading case: Reynolds v. Giuliani, 506 F.3d 183 (2d Cir. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Reynolds v. Giuliani, 506 F.3d 183 (2d Cir. 2007). · cites it 8× “5 (2007); 42 C.F.R. § 435.903 (a) (2006), and corrective action to reduce deficiencies in local administration, 7 C.”
Shakhnes Ex Rel. Shakhnes v. Berlin, 689 F.3d 244 (2d Cir. 2012). “10 (e), the State agency must (1) “[h]ave methods to keep itself currently informed of the adherence of local [entities] to the State plan provisions and the agency’s procedures for determining eligibility,” and (2) “[t]ake corrective action to ensure their adherence,” 42 C.F.R.…”
Reynolds v. Giuliani, 118 F. Supp. 2d 352 (S.D.N.Y. 2000). “§ 1396a(a)(1) (State plan mandatory on local administering agencies); 42 C.F.R. § 435.903 (requiring State to monitor local administering agencies’ performance and take corrective action when necessary), and argue that these provisions create privately enforceable rights.”
Strouchler v. Shah, 891 F. Supp. 2d 504 (S.D.N.Y. 2012). “10 (e), the State agency must (1) “[h]ave methods to keep itself currently informed of the adherence of local [entities] to the State plan provisions and the agency’s procedures for determining eligibility,” and (2) “[t]ake corrective action to ensure their adherence,” 42 C.F.R.…”
Stevens v. Dep't of Soc. Welfare, 620 A.2d 737 (Vt. 1992). “” 42 C.F.R. § 435.903 . We believe that it would not be “consistent with simplicity of administration and the best interest of the applicant” to require plaintiff to proceed in superior court to challenge a DSW decision simply because she relies on an equitable defense.”
Rosen v. Tennessee Comm'r of Fin. & Admin., 204 F. Supp. 2d 1048 (M.D. Tenn. 2001). · cites it 2× “42 C.F.R. § 435.903 (a) and (b). In addition, Subpart E requires the agency to provide written information to applicants seeking coverage.”
Boatman v. Hammons, 164 F.3d 286 (6th Cir. 1998). “— The plaintiffs claim that defendants are in violation of 42 C.F.R. § 435.903 which requires a state Medicaid agency to “have methods to keep itself currently informed of the adherence of local agencies to the state plan provisions and the agency’s procedures of determining…”
Crippen v. Dempsey, 549 F. Supp. 643 (W.D. Mich. 1982). “” 42 C.F.R. § 435.903 . 4 II. Plaintiffs case.”
Reynolds v. DeBuono (2d Cir. 2007). · cites it 4× “5 (2007); 42 C.F.R. § 435.903 (a) (2006), and 19 corrective action to reduce deficiencies in local administration, 20 7 C.”
Rosen v. Tennessee Comm'r of Fin. & Admin., 204 F. Supp. 2d 1061 (M.D. Tenn. 2001). “Further the proof disclosed a structural deficiency in the lack of a written protocol for Regional Mental Health Institutes (“RMHI”) and Community Mental Health Centers (“CMHCs”) as required by 42 C.F.R. § 435.903 (a) and (b). Although Plaintiffs’ proof of such noncompliance is…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.